Axis allies useless?

[Zebtucker12]

Why is Italian NM 40 anyways?
Worse than Soviet conscripts
Worse than Soviet peoples militas divisons
This is for trained Italian prewar divisons

[K62_]

One factor to consider is that Eastern Front participation was quite unpopular in Italy, whereas Soviet conscripts were fighting to defend their homes. I think the morale is appropriate for the Italian units but maybe they should have higher experience.

It's also questionable how applicable the Italian pre-war training was to the Eastern Front. I can see them being very effective in small units actions. But when it came to mobile warfare they certainly had a rough time, e.g. defending Libya against British tanks.

[Zebtucker12]

One factor to consider is that Eastern Front participation was quite unpopular in Italy, whereas Soviet conscripts were fighting to defend their homes. I think the morale is appropriate for the Italian units but maybe they should have higher experience.

Actually the italians often saw it as defending their homes either from bolschevism or if they where southernercatholics they saw it as a glorious crusade to defend their homes from the athiestsoviet antichrist i recomend reading Fascist Voices: An Intimate History of Mussolini's Italy ,Great book.

40 NM effect both combat and experince making the Italians way underperform compared to their historical performance in the east.

[Zovs]

Is the issue that the perception is that the Axis Allies should preform better/worse than they did historically? (I personally think the Slovakians and Hungarians were the best of the lot, then some of the Italian divisions followed by the Rumanians)

Is the issue that a single Axis Allied division gets mauled by several Soviet divisions a problem? (I don't see any issue here)

I have found that if you stack 2 or 3 Rumanian divisions in a hex you'll have better results, then if you single stack them and I don't see an issue here either.

I don't think the Axis Allies are useless but I also think its how they are being used. You can't expect an Axis Allied unit to perform better than German units.

[Zebtucker12]

The Italians did not get mauled even when attacked by multiple Soviet divisons... Unless the german commander does the historical ingame and send the italians foward to be destroyed so the germans can runaway and post war lies about italians being bad soldiers.
Winter 1942 is just sad the Italians where keept in their place by the germans so the germans could escape and even then the italians managed to break their pockets and for this they are rewarded with 40 nm in WITE2
2-3 romanians might work in 1941 in 1942 even in level 3 forts they get destroyed without the Soviets outnumbering them greatly.

I dont think anyone has called for the axis minors being anywhere near the germans in quality.


Like its been posted above the axis minors main problem was AT weaponary not them being milita tier.

[K62_]

I don't think the Axis Allies are useless but I also think its how they are being used. You can't expect an Axis Allied unit to perform better than German units.

Completely agree. Post-Stalingrad the Germans concluded that Axis Allies fought best when "corseted" with German units. This worked okay with the Romanians in the first Jassy-Kishinev offensive and seemed to work really well with the Hungarians in '44 - '45. In game I also think there's a big increase in combat efficiency when stacking German regiments (or even decent German SUs) with the Axis Allied forces.

[Stamb]

Is the issue that the perception is that the Axis Allies should preform better/worse than they did historically? (I personally think the Slovakians and Hungarians were the best of the lot, then some of the Italian divisions followed by the Rumanians)

Is the issue that a single Axis Allied division gets mauled by several Soviet divisions a problem? (I don't see any issue here)

I have found that if you stack 2 or 3 Rumanian divisions in a hex you'll have better results, then if you single stack them and I don't see an issue here either.

I don't think the Axis Allies are useless but I also think its how they are being used. You can't expect an Axis Allied unit to perform better than German units.

They are not only terrible in defense, they are also terrible in attack.

From a tyronec's AAR:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 8#p4944268



And this is not exception from a rule. They "perform" like this every time.

[Zovs]

I think this is a good article on Italian units.

https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2016/ ... talingrad/

"The most successful Italian Army of World War II was a political creation of dictator Benito Mussolini."

"This unit, the Corpo Spedzione Italiane in Russia (CSIR) became the most successful Italian army in the war. This army advanced the greatest distance, more than 1,100 kilometers, earned the most victories, and lost just two battles. But like many armies before it, the Italian force was swallowed up in the vast winter landscape of Russia and has been forgotten by history."

"The CSIR began its movement into Russia on July 16 from Botosani, on the border between Romania and Bessarabia. These were the best units in the Italian Army at this time. Historian William Craig, in his classic Enemy at the Gates, confirms this impression of the Italian units. “The Italians sent their best units into the Soviet Union,” he wrote. "

"The soldiers began the campaign with high morale. Because of the high degree of mobility for Italian units, greater than the German infantry units, even the Germans were impressed."



So I think I would agree that the Italians need a higher National Morale level then what they presently have.

[Zovs]

In game I also think there's a big increase in combat efficiency when stacking German regiments (or even decent German SUs) with the Axis Allied forces.

I am seeing this a lot in 1942 tests with Axis Allies being present in the south. Splitting down a couple of German divisions and adding one to an Axis Allied unit really helps.

[Zovs]

Is the issue that the perception is that the Axis Allies should preform better/worse than they did historically? (I personally think the Slovakians and Hungarians were the best of the lot, then some of the Italian divisions followed by the Rumanians)

Is the issue that a single Axis Allied division gets mauled by several Soviet divisions a problem? (I don't see any issue here)

I have found that if you stack 2 or 3 Rumanian divisions in a hex you'll have better results, then if you single stack them and I don't see an issue here either.

I don't think the Axis Allies are useless but I also think its how they are being used. You can't expect an Axis Allied unit to perform better than German units.

They are not only terrible in defense, they are also terrible in attack.

From a tyronec's AAR:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 8#p4944268



And this is not exception from a rule. They "perform" like this every time.

Here you using:

a) someone elses AAR
b) a very old version (.13) which to me is irrelevant

I am seeing much better results in .24.

[Stamb]

While moral does help axis allies it does much less than one might expect. I've run two GC from 41-43 with +10nm for axis allies and the axis allies where only marginally more useful than normally.

They still have problems with horrible leaders and I'm just guessing their division OB and equipment is so poor they would require quite a bit more than +10nm, some results in combat even with 65+ moral axis allies are so horrible its comical even thought they can have decently displayed CV.

I will just quote this. Looks like 10 or even higher NM will not help them.
Their CV that is displayed is fake. Like it was fake for an urban hexes. It will be lower than displayed in 99% of a battles.

I do not know details of a final CV calculation but maybe some coefficient for a final CV is needed.

Like CV*X in order to fix this issue. And before somebody starts to blame me - it is just a suggestion. And i will still play this game even if axis allies are nerfed*

*but as a Soviet Union

[Stamb]

...
Here you using:

a) someone elses AAR
b) a very old version (.13) which to me is irrelevant

I am seeing much better results in .24.

true.
Here is newer version and mine screenshots:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 7#p4958697
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 4#p4958744
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 0#p4979800

I will make more when i have time to play.

[Zovs]

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 7#p4958697
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 4#p4958744
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 0#p4979800

In one of those screen shots your using one Rumanian division to attack one Soviet division.

Just running this new tests on .24.

Here I am using two with great results (i.e., not useless).



One division had 100 CPP and the other at 82 CPP. That is another part of the key.

[loki100]

..
Their CV that is displayed is fake. Like it was fake for an urban hexes. It will be lower than displayed in 99% of a battles.

..

seems pretty accurate here ... (or doesn't this count for some reason)



there are a number of reasons for cv to shift. One is running out of supply/ammo if the resupply routines fail (or its not there), loss of pre-battle fortifications and, of course, disruptions (or worse). And yes, the latter hit low experience formations more than high experience (try defending with the Soviets in April-Oct 42 with 45 NM)

[Stamb]

zovs and loki

in both examples Romanians lose more units than Soviets despite having more men in a battle, at least there was some armor from a Soviets to make more sense for an end result.

in loki's example cv seems to be ok.
in zovs's it dropped from 188 to 39 which is 4.8 times (and game is not telling why). Also there is guard division which has increased NM, if i am not wrong.


I can not say that it is bad performance in both cases. But i showed you what i had. And what other players have.
I am also playing 02.24beta and i will post more info once i have time to play.

[Stamb]

btw it is first time for a long period where players that do not agree with somebody decides to post their own screenshots, not only text like "stop moaning"

this is what we need to do on a forum

[Sammy5IsAlive]

zovs and loki

in both examples Romanians lose more units than Soviets despite having more men in a battle, at least there was some armor from a Soviets to make more sense for an end result.

in loki's example cv seems to be ok.
in zovs's it dropped from 188 to 39 which is 4.8 times (and game is not telling why). Also there is guard division which has increased NM, if i am not wrong.


I can not say that it is bad performance in both cases. But i showed you what i had. And what other players have.
I am also playing 02.24beta and i will post more info once i have time to play.

In Zovs example the Rumanian CV dropped by 80% whilst the Soviet CV dropped by 70%. Both sides suffered roughly equivalent casualties in terms of percentage of their forces. Worth noting also that the Soviets had unopposed Ground Support which I believe makes a difference.

I think that there is an argument that the Italian divisions should get a boost to their starting experience. But other than that I can't see any evidence in this thread that the Axis Allies are systematically underpowered. As others have already described if you use them in the wrong situations they will suffer badly. But if you are a bit more gentle with them they certainly have their uses.

[Stamb]

Btw, there is no info about disrupted people. Only general info from a battle. Would be nice if Zovs can post details of that battle. Both Soviets division routed. And i suspect that most casualties come from a retreat than from a battle.
While for Romanians they lost their men in a battle and 0 in retreat.

I dont know if fighting with Axis allies vs non mech/tank and expecting +- similar performance is too much what i would like to see...

[Stamb]

...
Worth noting also that the Soviets had unopposed Ground Support which I believe makes a difference.
...

Here is also GS, does not make a difference for an end result, while still disrupting some elements (and not destroying anything unlike VVS can do but that is another topic that i have no will to comment):

[exalted]

I will just quote this. Looks like 10 or even higher NM will not help them.
Their CV that is displayed is fake. Like it was fake for an urban hexes. It will be lower than displayed in 99% of a battles.

I do not know details of a final CV calculation but maybe some coefficient for a final CV is needed.

Like CV*X in order to fix this issue. And before somebody starts to blame me - it is just a suggestion. And i will still play this game even if axis allies are nerfed*

*but as a Soviet Union

Not sure there is necessarily anything wrong with the way the axis allies work, they are just better off board than on it especially if you use TB control where you can get german divisions for putting allies elsewhere.

As a game however and probably as a simulation as well it would be more correct and more fun if they preformed at least as well as the equivalent number of soviet soldiers and in some cases (better divisions) probably slightly better at least 41-42. This is rarely the case under current rules. Personally I think displayed CV for axis allies could be about halved and it would be more accurate .

Still I think once my current game vs the AI is over (and its mid 43 right now with 12m lost soviets so that won't be that long) I'll do an +10nm Hungarians, +15nm Romanians, +20nm Italians GC with the intent of having maximum number of axis allies on the map through TB control Should be challanging at least. Maybe I'll even do it as a AAR for fun

Anyone experiemented with a good way to keep Italy in the fight longer than historically?